Invisible Things can't Flank: What's the big dealio?

[KarinsDad]

No, according to the rules, B is in more trouble.

According to the Sage, he's in less trouble.

-Hyp.

Thanks for the clarification. I meant according to the Sages rule.

I do not have my book in front of me, but I thought it was:

According to the rules, B is in more trouble, the first problem is that he is in the same trouble before he is aware of the invisible opponent as he is after he is aware of the invisible opponent (i.e. there is no benefit to the invisible character for B not knowing). The second problem is that both opponents get flanks, regardless of whether anyone is aware of the invisible opponent.

According to the Sage, he's in less trouble.

 

[Celtavian]

re

You are avoiding the issue.

Invisible Rogue moves into flanking position. He does not attack. Defender does not know about Invisible Rogue. Visible Rogue does not know about Invisible Rogue.

Why would Visible Rogue get a flank?

Invisible Rogue is still threatening Defender (e.g. he could do an AoO if Defender tried to cast a spell), but he has done nothing to alert either Visible Rogue or Defender to his position.

Why would Defender suddenly be aware of him?

Because of your house rule that invisible characters can flank?

That house rule is fine once the Defender knows about the Invisible Rogue, but until he does, it should be as if the Invisible Rogue is not even there.

Why would the invisible rogue move into flanking position and not attack? To use a metagame mechanic to give the other rogue a flanking bonus?

I would not consider the invisible rogue flanking if he chose not to attack purposely using a metagame mechanic. I'm not personally very tolerant of metagame tactics that hurt "common sense" play.

I guess given the players that I have, this would never happen. That is why it didn't even occur to me that a rogue or another person would move behind an attacker while invisible and then just "quietly threaten" (laughably impossible really). I would certainly require the player to make the defender aware either by attacking, taunting or whatever means seemed reasonable before I would give a flank bonus. The attacker couldn't just stand there quietly pretending to attack. I wouldn't allow it and would have no problem ruling that neither attacker received a flank bonus.

We have an unwritten rule in our house called the "This is stupid" rule. If a person violates this rule we harangue them into submission citing the "this is stupid" rule.

 

[Silverglass]

<snip>

According to the rules, if you have:

A B X

where X is invisible, B is in less trouble than if X were visible.

<snip>

No if A and X are visible B is in trouble as both A and B get a benefit from the position of the other.

If X is invisible B is in trouble, he is just in a different sort of trouble in that A is no more dangerous than if X wasn't there but X is more dangerous than if he was visible.

Is +2 to hit and can suffer sneak attack from 2 opponents better or worse than +4 to hit, denied dex and can suffer sneak attack from one opponent and +0 to hit from the other?

The correct answer is better if both A and X are both rogues and they have a high chance of hitting with every attack, but worse if only X is a rogue or their chance of getting a hit is low (e.g. if A and X would normally need to roll a 19 to hit then with flanking thats 2 20% chances of a hit with senak attack, with X invisible its a 10% chance of a standard hit from A and a 30% chance of a hit from B with sneak attack unless B has an 18 DEX in which case its a 50% chance).

As a generalisation B is not in less trouble if X is invisible as in MOST situations involving similar CR opponents he is likely to be hit as often/more often by an invisible X, and A is never worse off than they would be fighting B, they just miss out on a bonus.

 

[FrankTrollman]

No if A and X are visible B is in trouble as both A and B get a benefit from the position of the other.

If X is invisible B is in trouble, he is just in a different sort of trouble in that A is no more dangerous than if X wasn't there but X is more dangerous than if he was visible.

Not if A has Blindfighting - which is the basic problem here. If A and X are both invisible, and B has blindfighting, B is in no trouble at all. In fact, if B is a spellcaster and figures on fighting with Burning Hands and Fireballs and such - he suffers no penalties at all - but he would if he could see his enemies.

That's where it gets intolerably dumb.

Under the actual rules it is sometimes to your advantage to not attack your enemies. Heck, I've taken Aikido - and sometimes it is advantageous to not attack your enemies.

Under the FAQ ruling it is sometimes to your advantage to poke your own eyes out with white hot pokers (for example: you are a blaster Sorcerer with the Blindfighting feat). To the best of my knowledge, there is no fighting style which makes it advantageous to rip out your own eyeballs.

Is +2 to hit and can suffer sneak attack from 2 opponents better or worse than +4 to hit, denied dex and can suffer sneak attack from one opponent and +0 to hit from the other?

But that's not the choice. The choice is +2 to-hit and deny your dex bonus (negated by Uncanny Dodge), or +2 to-hit (negated by Improved Uncanny Dodge). Flanking is, in general, more difficult to negate than is Invisibility. If Invisibility supercedes Flanking, then there is no reason for Improved Uncanny Dodge to even exist - you can get the same benefit just by closing your eyes several levels earlier.

And that's stupid. And it's not what the rules say.

Fake Rules + Stupid Results = Ignored by Me.

-Frank

 

[KarinsDad]

Why would the invisible rogue move into flanking position and not attack?

An assumption on your part. You have to set up the rules so that they take into account all situations, not just likely ones.

The invisible rogue might not be moving to flank.

The defender might have been the one who moved and now the invisible rogue is threatening him.

I would not consider the invisible rogue flanking if he chose not to attack purposely using a metagame mechanic.

Hmmm. According to the rules, though, the invisible rogue IS both threatening and flanking.

Whether he chooses to take advantage of that is his business.

Whether his ally, the visible rogue gets a flank, however, is dependent on some circumstance.

The circumstance that you specified is that the invisible rogue was attacking. That, to me, indicates that the defender basically knows that there is an invisible creature there anyway. No different than my earlier point on the visible rogue getting a flank only after the defender is aware of the invisible threatening character.


And, what about future rounds? What if the invisible rogue (say Improved Invisibility) gets distracted with another opponent or decides to drink a cure potion or something?

Does the visible rogue get to continue to attack with flank, even though the invisible rogue is no longer attacking (with your "attacking theory")? Probably not. But, the invisible rogue is still threatening the defender and can still get an AoO if the defender tries to cast a spell or move, just like if he were visible. Why should the flank rules for whether a character is actually attacking be different based on whether he is invisible or visible?

The defender and the visible rogue should have no clue that
the invisible guy is doing something else, hence, the defender should still be flanked by both rogues as long as the invisible rogue is still threatening him (via the books definition of threatening).

 

[Celtavian]

re

An assumption on your part. You have to set up the rules so that they take into account all situations, not just likely ones.

The invisible rogue might not be moving to flank.

The defender might have been the one who moved and now the invisible rogue is threatening him.

As I said, surprise round should take cafe of it. No, you don't have to set up the rules to cover every situation.

You have to be able to arbitrate as a DM a reasonable solution to a problem that the rules don't cover.

Hmmm. According to the rules, though, the invisible rogue IS both threatening and flanking.

Whether he chooses to take advantage of that is his business.

Not in any game that reasonable people are playing. If the person purposely decides not to attack while invisible, so that he doesn't break his invisibility, I will not consider that person flanking.

Whether his ally, the visible rogue gets a flank, however, is dependent on some circumstance.

The circumstance that you specified is that the invisible rogue was attacking. That, to me, indicates that the defender basically knows that there is an invisible creature there anyway. No different than my earlier point on the visible rogue getting a flank only after the defender is aware of the invisible threatening character.

exactly. It is exactly the same without overcomplicating the scenario. DM's have alot to remember. I don't want to have to remember whether or not the rogue actually hit in the first round.

Once the invisible attacker moves in for the flank a surprise round or a listen check will alert the defender. If the invisible attacker chooses not to attack, then as far as I'm concerned the defender is not flanked. Actually choosing not to attack will cause me to rule that the defender is not flanking.

DM's can make arbitrary rulings when players attempt to manipulate rules in such a way that it would not make sense or even a good scene in a story.

And, what about future rounds? What if the invisible rogue (say Improved Invisibility) gets distracted with another opponent or decides to drink a cure potion or something?

He still threatens if he is flanking. The person still hears the rogue in combat behind him. Its up to the defender to move out of the flank once he is attacked. Its pretty simple.

Does the visible rogue get to continue to attack with flank, even though the invisible rogue is no longer attacking (with your "attacking theory")?

Yes, he is still threatening. D&D us very ambiguous.

If I used your assertion that turning to attack another opponent caused an invisible rogue to not be flanking, that would work with any opponent. Any time a person turned their attention elsewhere, they would be considered not flanking.

In ambiguous D&D combat, whether you are attacking the flanked opponent or not is irrelevant.

Probably not. But, the invisible rogue is still threatening the defender and can still get an AoO if the defender tries to cast a spell or move, just like if he were visible. Why should the flank rules for whether a character is actually attacking be different based on whether he is invisible or visible?

I don't think they should be. If you re-read my post, you will see that I stated "alerting the defender" was important by whatever means necessary such attacking, taunting or some other means. Attacking is one method, but there are others.

[/quote]The defender and the visible rogue should have no clue that
the invisible guy is doing something else, hence, the defender should still be flanked by both rogues as long as the invisible rogue is still threatening him (via the books definition of threatening).[/QUOTE]

Agreed. I never stated otherwise. My only requirement is that the invisible attacker alert the defender to his presence in some way. He can't stand there and think threatenting thoughts (even if he has telepathy).

 

[KarinsDad]

Agreed. I never stated otherwise. My only requirement is that the invisible attacker alert the defender to his presence in some way. He can't stand there and think threatenting thoughts (even if he has telepathy).

Ok, it sounds like we are saying the same thing, just using different words.

I guess the only question I have now is that the instant that you have the situation:

A B X

A does not have flanking if X is invisible until B is aware of X, X does have flanking regardless of whether B is alerted to the presence of X yet or not.

Bs awareness or lack of awareness of X does not take away from Xs ability to flank. Are you saying the same thing? I thought maybe not because of the following statement.

Not in any game that reasonable people are playing. If the person purposely decides not to attack while invisible, so that he doesn't break his invisibility, I will not consider that person flanking.

I am assuming that this is just a misunderstanding between what you wrote and what you meant.

I think what you might have meant here is that A does not get flank until B is aware of X (X attacks or is heard or some other condition of awareness).

What you wrote is that X does not get flank if he decides to not attack.

If you actually meant what you wrote, then I think it is a semantics issue. X does get flank, but it doesn't matter if X isn't attacking.


If you meant that A does not get flank once B is aware of X because X is not attacking B, then I totally disagree. That is not the rule if X is visible, so it should not be the rule if X is invisible.

 

[Magus Coeruleus]

This is still hairy. What happens if an Improved Invisible creature threatens, attacks, flanks, yadda yadda yadda, and then for a round stops threatening (sheathes weapons or whatever). Is the defender automatically aware of this? If not, and if he fails to realize this, is he still "flanked" since he assumes the invisible guy is still threatening, or is he no longer flanked because he isn't actually threatened. For that matter, what if the invisible creature quietly manages to slip away? Is there the possibility that the defender will continue to suffer as if flanked because he does not yet realize that the invisible guy bailed?

These situations reinforce, for me, the value of requiring that for someone to flank, they must make their threat (in a technical sense, as in threaten) clear. There is room for this since even though 3E is not 2E with its 1-minute rounds, there still is the assumption that in 6 seconds' time there is darting about, a few feints and parries (in fact, part of what iterative attacks represents is more of those things turning into "real" attacks). IMO, the way an invisible creature manages to flank is that it basically "advertises" it's threat. The defender may hear the swipes, smell the creature, see subtle distortions in the air, feel vibrations and the air swooshing and glancing feints, etc. Whatever flavor descriptions you like. I assume that if you are flanking, you are doing these things to keep the defender on his toes so that he has to divide his attention or what have you. Thus, if you no longer threaten, or leave, as an invisible character, the defender will quickly pick up on the fact that he is no longer flanked.

Similarly, imagine someone is waiting in a hidden niche (not invisible, but hiding in shadows or something), ready to strike someone who comes within 5'. I'd say the ambusher here threatens even if he keeps totally still and quiet, waiting for his quarry to enter a threatened square. But let's say a clearly visible ally is in a position to flank with the ambusher. If the hapless prey winds up between them and would otherwise not detect the ambusher, I'd say that if the ambusher wants to provide flanking status, he needs to make his threat clear enough that the prey knows that he is being flanked. Again, that doesn't mean he automatically knows anything else about the ambusher, such as specific location, just that he's flanked, but he can infer quite a bit. This is entirely relevant because the visible ally might just have initiative over the ambusher, so the ambusher needs to either help and reveal something, or stay tight but not provide a flanking bonus to his pal.

.02

 

[KarinsDad]

This is still hairy. What happens if an Improved Invisible creature threatens, attacks, flanks, yadda yadda yadda, and then for a round stops threatening (sheathes weapons or whatever).

A good question.

The answer is yes, he is still threatening as long as the defender believes that he is still there and threatening. If the defender loses track of him, I would rule that his ally no longer gets a flank bonus. If the defender hears a thud of him hitting the ground, I would allow the defender to believe that the invisible opponent was unconscious or dead, even if it were only a book that hit the ground and the invisible guy is merely drinking a cure potion.

If the hapless prey winds up between them and would otherwise not detect the ambusher, I'd say that if the ambusher wants to provide flanking status, he needs to make his threat clear enough that the prey knows that he is being flanked.

I agree with this.

If we make the entire flanking issue "defender awareness of a threat", then most if not all of the problems go away.

If the defender thinks that there is an invisible opponent on one side of him, than the other attacker should get the flank.

This would make smell and sound illusions more potent (which is a good thing since they are wimpy now).

"I can hear and smell this guy back here, but I cannot see him. Come help me out Fred."

 

[Hypersmurf]

The answer is yes, he is still threatening as long as the defender believes that he is still there and threatening.

Not in the Rules Forum, it isn't! The answer might be yes in House Rules, but by either "official" ruling - the written rules or the Sage's interpretation - an invisible attacker who walks away is no longer threatening and does not provide a flanking bonus.

-Hyp.